Editorial

Not much escapes folks in small communities like Windermere when it comes to proposed development. And why should it? This is their home.

Any development, regardless of scope, will have an impact on the people who live here, an impact on quality of life, property and aesthetics.

Mention the word development and it conjures up all manner of knee-jerk reactions in some people — skull and crossbones, for one. Developers no doubt have learned the skillful act of eye-rolling by now. Not in my backyard. Then whos?

Then there are folks who see development as progress, which is necessary to help the community grow and prosper. Development can enhance the economy and address social problems (a lack of housing) that plague the municipality and society as a whole. 

The latest issue of note is the proposed Heritage Heights multi-family housing development in Windermere (on The Bench Road and North Street). While the Windermere Community Association (WCA) supports housing initiatives where needed, it is concerned about the impacts that the proposal will have on density, water/sewer capacity, and traffic safety. But the consultant for the developer says these issues will be addressed via studies and reports.

One overshadowing issue for the WCA is what it views as the “unfair” public input process set forth by the RDEK. The process allows only three business days for the public to make submissions, and you must register two days in advance to present at a public hearing. This may seem stringent but the RDEK is not breaking any rules here. Perhaps they could look at extending the submission deadline to four days and the public hearing registration to one day. Just a suggestion to address concerns.

Another issue was raised about two directors of the RDEK expressing preliminary support for the proposal prior to the public hearing. While some may argue this is inappropriate before listening to comments at the hearing, this is not Russia; elected officials are allowed to express their thoughts after a proposal is presented. 

Last week Area F director Susan Clovechok was the lone wolf in her motion that the board not proceed with the bylaw amendments to allow the development. Despite her reiterating the public’s concerns, the motion was defeated, breathing new life into the proposal. The concern is if the board kills the project now (essentially throwing away the welcome mat), future investors won’t bother to submit their development applications. That’s one message you don’t want getting around.

At the end of the day, board members will digest all of the information, including the checks and balances, and make their decision. That’s what we elected them for.

Lyonel Doherty, editor